[Peace-discuss] Anti-war right-winger

[C. G. Estabrook]

[I keep mentioning that a substatial part of the American Right (not just
Libertarians) have serious hesitations about the Bush policies.  Here's
another example.  The first two paragraphs are largely nonsense, but I 
think many of us would agree with much of the rest.  --CGE]

THE WANDERER, OCTOBER 2, 2003

JOSEPH SOBRAN'S WASHINGTON WATCH

The War President

     Conservatives have long put a premium on defense and national
security, especially since the Soviet Union acquired nuclear weapons
shortly after World War II. The American nuclear monopoly proved
unnervingly short-lived.  To make matters worse, the U.S. government had
been penetrated by Soviet agents and spies, thanks in large part to
Franklin Roosevelt's strange affection for Joseph Stalin; and the Soviets
managed to acquire the awful weapons partly by espionage.

     This gave rise to the so-called McCarthy Era, which liberals recall
as a period of national hysteria and paranoia -- as if there had been
nothing for Americans to worry about. That was a wild distortion, but it's
true that fear of the Soviets and their little helpers bred some bad
habits that have outlasted the Soviet Union itself.

     When it came to defense issues, conservatives forgot their old
reservations about big government. They tended to be as reflexively
supportive of anything the federal government did in the name of "the
common defense" as liberals were about anything it did in the name of "the
general welfare." The result was the fantastic growth of a welfare-warfare
state, as both sides got what they wanted.

     As the Cold War faded into the past, military spending began to
dwindle, while "social" spending kept expanding. That trend changed
suddenly with the astonishing and appalling terrorist attacks of 9/11. The
new Republican administration became as hawkish as any of its predecessors
in order to wage a vaguely defined war on terrorism. Old militaristic
habits and poses seemed urgent again.

     Just as John Kennedy -- a hawkish Democrat -- had pledged to "pay any
price, bear any burden" in the "twilight struggle" for freedom, so George
W. Bush set aside any sense of measure about the cost of defeating the new
enemy. Once again, the purported stake was freedom itself, even if it
wasn't clear how stateless terrorists could imperil the freedom of
Americans. The enemy was all the more frightening for being hard to
identify with any precision.

     Guided by a few neoconservative intellectuals (there were no
neoconservative masses), President Bush soon found a sitting target: Iraq.
The regime of Saddam Hussein was said to pose a terrible threat to the
free world, possibly a nuclear threat; it was said to be a terrible
tyranny (like the Soviet Union) and to possess "weapons of mass
destruction" (also like the Soviet Union). Bush also implied that Iraq was
harboring and abetting terrorists and had something to do with the events
of 9/11. Destroying the hateful regime was an imperative of both national
survival and morality.

     Bush never wavered on the evil and the acute danger of Saddam's
reign. For many months he, his spokesmen, and his supporters in the media
stressed the urgency of making war and effecting regime change. Only good
could come of the proposed war; it would bring democracy not only to Iraq,
but to other Arab and Muslim states in the Mideast. Costs? They were
hardly considered. The United States must pay any price, bear any burden.
And though the administration was prepared to make war with or without the
approval of the United Nations, it repeatedly offered as a reason and
justification for war Saddam's defiance of UN resolutions.

     The lasting horror of 9/11 and the administration's headlong
insistence on war disarmed skepticism.  Republicans were nearly
unanimously pro-war; Democrats were afraid to oppose it, fearing the
stigma of being unpatriotic or even anti-American. France, Germany, and
other old Cold War allies were reviled and derided for anti-Americanism,
appeasement, and other sins for their refusal to back the war.
Neoconservative partisans of Israel were even more vociferous and
uninhibited on these themes than the administration was. But to mention
Israel's interest in having the U.S. knock off its chief enemy -- an
interest that was hardly concealed -- was to court the usual charges of
anti-Semitism.

     Finally, in March of this year, the war began. The U.S. victory was
swift and easy -- even the "cakewalk"  the hawks had predicted. Saddam
Hussein fled, believed dead for weeks (though he was apparently only in
hiding).  He used no weapons of mass destruction; if he had ever had any,
they weren't found. But Bush insisted they would turn up eventually; and
in the meantime he basked in victory, making a triumphal appearance on an
aircraft carrier wearing a flight suit. Cheering crowds welcomed American
troops into Baghdad.

     Throughout all this, the terrorists -- specifically Osama bin Laden
and al-Qaeda -- were nearly forgotten.  They played no visible part in the
war. Most Americans who favored the war believed that Saddam had been
behind the 9/11 attacks in some way; the administration never quite
alleged that he had, but it never denied it, thereby allowing people to
think so. (One poll found that many Americans were unsure of the
difference between Saddam Hussein and bin Laden.)

     But it turned out that the Bush administration had no clear plan for
the postwar occupation of Iraq.  Contrary to its optimistic predictions,
seized Iraqi oil assets haven't begun to cover the costs of ruling the
defeated country; Bush has already been forced to ask Congress for an
additional $87 billion for the purpose.  Guerrilla resistance, suicide
bombings, sabotage, and killings of American troops, UN personnel, and
native collaborators have turned the occupation into a headache of daily
frustration. Power has not yet been transferred to the American-installed
Iraqi Governing Council and won't be soon. The promised democracy remains
remote.

     It now appears that Iraq was never a threat to the United States, and
it's hard to understand why anyone could ever have believed that it was.
Any connection between war on Iraq and war on terrorism seems extremely
tenuous.

     The whole operation is turning out to be extremely expensive, and
it's hard to see what, if anything, has been gained. "Liberation" is
hardly an apt description for what the restive Iraqis are feeling; even
the Bush "victory" is far from complete. The projected total cost of the
war and occupation are staggering, bringing the prospect of colossal
federal deficits for years to come.  Bush is trying to win international
cooperation for the occupation, but he has alienated too many foreign
governments.

Change of Fortune

     Most striking of all, Bush's own popularity is diving. New polls find
him trailing several of the Democrats who seek to run against him in 2004.
Only a few weeks ago his supporters giddily believed his military victory
would make him politically invincible next year.  Now the Democrats are
pretending they opposed the war all along. Even the Clintons are players
again, fanning the candidacy of Gen. Wesley Clark, who is unlikely to win
but could pave the way for Hillary to step into the race.

     Even loyal Republicans are finally having qualms.  They are
discovering that military boondoggles can be every bit as costly and
ruinous as domestic social programs. And as it sinks in that American
national security and survival were never at risk, the thrill of seeming
victory has worn off and the public is finding the aftertaste very bitter.

     It's a startling change of fortune for a president who so recently
had the country united behind him. George Bush may yet join his father as
a successful war president whose greatest triumph couldn't guarantee him a
second term.

                                        --- Joseph Sobran

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Read this column on-line at
"http://www.sobran.com/wanderer/w2003/w031002.shtml".